Barnes v. Carter
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-00882
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barnes v. Covello, Judge Orrick found Barnes’s habeas claims cognizable and ordered a response, without deciding whether relief should be granted.
Antoine Deshawn Barnes and respondent Patrick Covello; the habeas case proceeds to a response or possible procedural motion.
What happened
In Barnes v. Covello, Antoine Deshawn Barnes sought federal review of his state conviction and four-year sentence for indecent exposure. He said he had pleaded no contest in state court in 2021 and that his efforts to overturn the conviction had been unsuccessful.
Barnes raised two claims: that illegal sentencing enhancements were imposed and that new laws entitled him to resentencing. The court found those claims sufficient to proceed and ordered the respondent to answer the petition or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
Judge Tam H. Orrick did not decide whether Barnes is entitled to habeas relief. The order required a response by April 24, 2023, and set deadlines for any further filings.
The detailed version
- Barnes v. Carter · No. 3:22-cv-00882
- William Orrick
- Jan. 26, 2023
Background
Antoine Deshawn Barnes filed a petition seeking federal habeas relief from a state conviction and sentence for indecent exposure. According to the petition, Barnes pleaded no contest to the charge in the Monterey County Superior Court in 2021 and received a four-year sentence. The opinion says it appeared that his attempts to overturn the conviction in state court were unsuccessful.
Claims and Screening
The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Barnes alleged that illegal sentencing enhancements had been imposed and that new laws entitled him to resentencing. The court concluded that, when read liberally, these claims were legally cognizable. It therefore allowed the petition to proceed rather than summarily dismissing it.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It directed respondent Patrick Covello to file an answer by April 24, 2023, explaining why habeas relief should not be granted, or instead to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. The order also required the relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record to be filed with an answer. Barnes could file a response within thirty days after an answer, and the order set separate deadlines if respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
This order did not decide the merits of Barnes’s sentencing or resentencing claims and did not grant or deny habeas relief. It also warned Barnes about serving filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, and prosecuting the case as required.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.